There is a reason why the question below, from a Hong Kong elementary school test, is making the rounds on the internet. Most adults can't solve it – not for want of math skills, but because most of them have lost the child's ability of unconventional thinking. Instead, they have acquired the debilitating unwillingness to try a different perspective.

The answer to the problem is provided at the bottom, but before you give up, here are some clues.

This problem is not mathematical, but rather philosophical. It proves that, in spite of what the modern "progressive" philosophers tell us, not all viewpoints are equally valid; in most cases, there is only one point of view that leads to the right answer.

This may cause objections from proponents of moral relativity, who believe that everyone's viewpoint is correct in its own way. Moral relativity is merely a nice-sounding cover for intellectual laziness; it relieves one of guilt for not trying to find the right solution. It's a lot easier to presume that one's viewpoint is always correct: wherever one happens to be at any given moment, that must be the correct position. By this logic, any position one had yesterday or will have tomorrow must also be correct. Therefore, all such positions must be equally valid, and anyone else's conflicting positions at different points of time must be equally valid, too. This is a way to madness.

Anyone can misjudge the facts due to the wrong vantage point. But while some will admit their mistake and will try to look at things differently, a moral relativist will insist that his perspective doesn't need changing and will blame the lack of solutions on the unknowable nature of the universe. He will then devise far-fetched schemes and erroneous complex formulas explaining why things are the way they are. It may be entertaining, but it will not lead to the right answer.

This test problem is, in fact, an optical illusion; it misleads us into judging the reality from the wrong perspective. In this sense, it is akin to agenda-driven movies, political speeches, media editorials, college courses, and writings by "progressive" economists, who, knowingly or not, blind us to simple facts, causing us to make wrong choices that benefit their cause to our detriment.

Oftentimes deceit can be accomplished not by hiding facts, but by replacing the coordinates and switching the entire frame of reference, which leads us to misjudge the same facts because we look at them from the wrong angle. This particular children's problem is a good reminder that out of many ways to look at facts, only one is correct, and all others will only take us on a maddening and fruitless quest for nonexistent solutions.

It also calls to mind the ongoing political and cultural disputes between "liberals" and "conservatives." Even though the "liberals" have never offered a workable answer, they rest assured in the superiority of their complex and morally relative approach to facts, despising "conservatives" for their simple belief in absolute truths that work. Unwilling to look at things from their opponents' "simple" perspective, they like to end their discussions with "let's agree to disagree."

Likewise, quite a few foreigners look at America from across the border or across the ocean and misjudge this country's realities simply because of the wrong perspective. Convinced of the superiority of their vantage point, they predictably arrive at bizarre and far-fetched conclusions, each one stranger than the last.

The simple truth of this test problem is that the numbers on the parking lot were placed there for the drivers; therefore, the only correct way to look at them is from inside the parking lot. That is the only correct system of coordinates; any other system or point of view leads to errors.

In summary, when faced with a seemingly unsolvable problem, check your absolutes; you may well be on the wrong side. Verify your system of coordinates, and make sure you are looking at the facts from the right perspective.

Wouldn't we all be better off if our political candidates were tested with this question before running for office – starting with our president? As it happens, the current president's far-reaching and flexible approaches to the country's problems seem to include every possible angle except that of the people in the parking lot.

There is no such thing as the concept invented by Marx. "Capitalism" as a Marxist concept is a clever means of shifting the perception of argument from your right to govern yourself, free-enterprise, and your right to your own life - to an argument that supports a Statist agenda and the complete opposite of the real things that the Marxist concept "capitalism" pretends to represent. The Statist uses the shifting of perception to create straw men.

Comrade Hammer and Loupe, I think the township council of Willingboro, NJ, just decided to change the automatic answer to 44 in honor of Dear Leader.

But wait, maybe it ought to be 43? No, not for the Bushitler <spit> who is STILL at fault for every problem Dear Leader faces. No, because there have truly only been 43 menpersons (too sexist.....has "sons" in it) people as president. Cleveland was #22 and #24. So, Dear Leader is the 43rd individual to serve in that position, even though he IS of course greater than all the rest combined!

Comrade Putout, how do you know it wasn't a student driver who did that? Maybe they're species-ist and discriminate against squirrels? Take away hisher(nope, must be gender neutral) that student's provisional license!

OK, so the numbers are painted the way they are for the benefit of drivers in the parking lot. But how does it benefit everyone else? How is that fair to anyone not in the parking lot? To anyone who doesn’t drive? To anyone who takes the bus instead? Why should I be denied the same benefits enjoyed by drivers in that parking lot just because I take the bus? And by the way, I take the bus because I care about the planet! That right there should entitle me not only to the same benefits, but MORE benefits! Never let it be said that I care for no reason! What do those drivers in the parking lot care about? Not the planet, or they wouldn’t be driving individual vehicles, and expecting vast parts of that planet to be torn up to create parking lots for those vehicles.

And don’t get me started on how offended I am by the notion that we should accept the car is parked on a certain number simply because of some ancient, hidebound sequence that was probably determined by a bunch of old white guys to oppress women and minorities. Because old white guys don’t do anything for any other reason.

This morning I received an email from Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy blog (now with Washington Post). He asked me to explain a few points in my essay, which he didn't understand.

This may be a bit long, but if you liked the original post, you may be interested in this exchange, which I'm posting with Eugene's permission.

Eugene Volokh

Dear Mr. Atbashian: A friend of mine forwarded me your post (A children's problem to test the aptitude of politicians), and I liked the math problem. But I wasn’t sure what to make of the political argument (and I say this as someone who is generally quite conservative/libertarian politically, and not at all “progressive”). Is there some deep joke I’m missing here? I was thinking of blogging about the post myself, at The Volokh Conspiracy, but I want to make sure I grasp what the post is driving at.

Here’s what puzzled me about the post, if it is indeed supposed to be a straight-up political argument. First, why is this problem – as opposed to other problems – particularly good at “prov[ing] that ... not all viewpoints are equally valid”? Many math problems do that at least as effectively, because they have one provably right answer. Indeed, from a purely mathematical perspective, this sort of problem actually doesn’t have a mathematically demonstrable right answer; technically, from such a purely mathematical perspective, (say) 45 would be an equally valid answer, because all these spots would then be solutions to the equation (x-16) * (x-6) * (x-68) * (x-88) * (x-45) * (x-98) = 0. We view 87 as the right answer because it’s simpler, and that’s why I like the problem; but I don’t see how it’s a particularly good proof of anything.

Second, how is this problem good at “prov[ing] that ... in most cases, there is only one point of view that leads to the right answer”? Even in math, there’s often not only one point of view that leads to the right answer. Just to give a simple example, I’ve recently shown my son two different proofs of the Pythagorean theorem, one algebraic and one geometric. (Indeed, there are many more than two.) Both lead to the right answer. To be sure, at a deep mathematical level, those proofs must therefore be equivalent, but from the perspective of someone solving the problem, they do represent different viewpoints. But beyond this, most of life isn’t math! How does a math problem “prove” that “in most cases” in ordinary life (or in political decisionmaking), “only one point of view ... leads to the right answer”?

Third, who exactly are “the modern ‘progressive’ philosophers” who “tell us [that] all viewpoints are equally valid”? I certainly haven’t heard of any philosopher making any such claims as to mathematics. (To be sure, as I noted above, there are often several approaches to thinking about math problems that yield the right result, but surely not all viewpoints are equally valid; and while, from a theoretical perspective, mathematicians do allow for various different axiom sets and definitional structures within which mathematical assertions can be made, there too no-one claims that all viewpoints are equally valid.) Nor have I heard of philosophers making such claims as to pragmatic judgments. It’s possible that some philosophers make such claims about moral views, but my sense is that the influence of those philosophers among “liberals” is vanishingly small. Indeed, as we have all experienced, many liberals tend to be extremely morally judgmental (not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that!), and perfectly ready to condemn rival moral viewpoints as invalid.

Fourth, what exactly are conservative “absolute truths”? I find it hard to think of many examples. That killing is wrong? Well, no, given the obvious exceptions. That killing humans except in self-defense is wrong? Not really, given conservative attitudes towards the permissibility of killing even innocents in just war (again, not that there’s anything wrong with that). If we really try to figure out what to say about killing, we come up with ... “complex ... approach[es] to the facts” (and that’s especially so when we become interested in degrees of guilt, such as murder vs. manslaughter). Maybe we might label them “absolute” rather than “morally relative,” but I’m not sure what those labels would even mean there. And that’s just for basic moral principles, never mind complicated empirical questions about setting up practically workable ways of dealing with crime, national defense, court systems, and so on.

And finally, while I love doing math puzzles such as this, is there really much reason to think that people who are good at such puzzles will be good at morality, at practical politics, or at evaluating complex practical fact questions?

Am I missing something here?

This is what I wrote in response:

Oleg Atbashian

Dear Eugene,Thank you for your interest in my article. I usually don't have much time for correspondence, but I'm familiar with The Volokh Conspiracy and I respect your work, so I'll try to answer your questions accordingly.

I think your disagreement stems from the fact that you treated it as a math problem, while it is really more of an optical illusion that misleads people into complex mathematical arguments when the solution is rather simple and lies in a completely different realm, obscured by people's preconceptions and biases. Which, in a way, makes this problem philosophical. I extrapolated it to moral issues because morality is downstream of philosophy. And politics are downstream of philosophy and morality; that's how I arrived at a political argument.

As a visual artist, I tend to use visual examples to make my points. I'm sure you are familiar with the works of Escher. I've made a few illustrations comparing his creations to Obama's America. As a kid I was fascinated with optical illusions for the fun of it; I'm re-examining them now as an illustration of how large masses of people can be mislead into accepting absurd and disastrous ideas with a mere trick of the eye, like messing with the perspective or throwing in a few dots that suggest connections that don't exist. It's similar to how conspiracy theories work as well. I believe that Marxism is one huge extended conspiracy theory about the deliberate oppression of the "toiling working masses" by "idle capitalist classes" - a misconception caused by what can be compared to a series of optical illusions with regards to history, economy, and human nature.

Speaking of philosophers promoting moral relativity, Marxism is the worst offender as well, as it the first tenet of the Marxist morality is that "good" is what advances the cause of the proletariat (which is class struggle and socialist revolution) and "bad" is what impedes it. Those things are never absolutes, as what was "good" yesterday may become "bad" today but will be "good" again tomorrow.

Who are the proponents of the "all opinions are equally valid" doctrine? As one example, take a look at the academic intellectual swamp that spawned multiculturalism, which postulates that all cultures are equally valid and that opinions and values of one culture can only be judged from within that culture. Understood from within that culture - yes; judged - no. There ought to be absolute standards, which is a philosophical issue. From there it leads to morality, then to politics, and then to plain senseless murder and mayhem we are seeing today.

Because several generations of people have been taught that there are no absolutes, we are now seeing massive world-wide support for Hamas against Israel, starting with academics and other intellectuals. This wouldn't be happening if people didn't see Israel and Hamas as moral equals. Islamic terrorism could have been a lot easier contained if so many people in the West didn't believe in the right of Islamic supremacists to subdue other cultures because their own culture compels them to do so - "who are we to judge them"? This is a testament to the decline of Western philosophy, which started, probably, with Kant and degenerated into post-modernism, deconstructivism, and their derivatives. If this goes on, we will soon be seeing UN-sponsored International Weeks of Cannibalism.

Regarding your example of "killing is bad" as the absolute truth: it doesn't work here because killing in itself is never a goal. No one kills for pleasure unless one is a sociopathic degenerate. Killing is usually a means to a goal and it is the goals that need to be examined - whether it's done in self-defense (e.g., against a sociopathic degenerate) or it's a killing to obtain wealth and power over people. Thus it is a problem of perspective - and here objectively exists an absolute system of coordinates here, even though many choose not to see it, claiming that everyone has a right to his own coordinates.

Personally I'm frustrated at how some of my old friends and family in the former USSR (Russia and Ukraine) constantly misjudge America and see an ugly and distorted image of this country based on the system of coordinates impressed on them in the past by the erstwhile Soviet government. It's similar to how people look at the upside down numbers in our children's problem and arrive at mind-boggling theories that make no sense.

What are the absolute truths I spoke of? Here are a few. People should have the right to keep what they earn. The best form of government is the one that, instead of "caring" about the people, ensures that the people have the freedom to take care of themselves. Economic success and prosperity are the result of economic freedom and the rule of law, not of plunder, slavery, and exploitation. The system that is being disparaged as "capitalism" is, in fact, the most moral because it allows happiness, fulfillment, and opportunity to most people. And so on.

Modern "progressive" beliefs negate these truths - at best, treating them as "one way to look at things." Hence the political, cultural, moral, and intellectual disarray the country is in right now. And it all starts with philosophy - or, more precisely, with how we perceive the objective reality. That's why I thought this trick children's problem was a good way to remind people of the importance of the right perspective - and why such an understanding of the right perspective is an important quality in a political leader. As of now it is amiss among most Democrats and many Republicans, too, who treat philosophical problems as math problems (e.g., "war on poverty" is not a problem of numbers but a problem of perception, etc.).

I looked you up - you arrived here from Kiev at the age of 7. I arrived here from Cherkassy (about 100 miles south of Kiev) at the the age of 34, and also 8 years older than you. Which means that I worked in the old USSR and went to school there, having to study a series of Marxist disciplines in college. And I'm still trying to untangle that perverted worldview, which I began to reject back then but didn't have the adequate tools nor the intellectual ammunition at the time. This probably explains my fixation on illusions that simultaneously affect multitudes of people, let alone my frustration with so many Americans who are now willingly imposing the same illusions on themselves and on others.

Which brings us back to optical illusions. My earlier book, Shakedown Socialism, is subtitled "Unions, Pitchforks, Collective Greed, The Fallacy of Economic Equality, and other Optical Illusions of Redistributive Justice." You get the idea.

If this piqued your interest, here's another short essay I wrote on the power of optical illusions and how it relates to our everyday lives:

People should have the right to keep what they earn. The best form of government is the one that, instead of "caring" about the people, ensures that the people have the freedom to take care of themselves. Economic success and prosperity are the result of economic freedom and the rule of law, not of plunder, slavery, and exploitation. The system that is being disparaged as "capitalism" is, in fact, the most moral because it allows happiness, fulfillment, and opportunity to most people. And so on.

RED SQUARE!!!!

E-MAIL HACKEDALERT !!!! Either a traitor in the party or some riechwingger who actually knows something about computers, managed to slip this vile paragraph in under your nose in your e-mail reply response !!!!!! I have my computer experts standing by if you need them to perform a thorough scan of your system to permanently remove any offensive and embarrassing e-mails that may put you in a most uncomfortable position in the future. My computer experts are highly recommended and if you wish to contact a previously satisfied client as to their ability to completely purge your E-mail of any incriminatory evidence that you may be a "conservative" hack, spit, spit.....call one Ms. L. Lerner at 555-1212.

As a visual artist, I tend to use visual examples to make my points. I'm sure you are familiar with the works of Escher. I've made a few illustrations comparing his creations to Obama's America. As a kid I was fascinated with optical illusions for the fun of it;

Ex-president Obama declares Irma "Hurricane of Peace," urges not to jump to conclusions and succumb to stormophobia

CNN: Trump reverses Obama's executive order banning hurricanes

ISIS claims responsibility for a total solar eclipse over the lands of American crusaders and nonbelievers

When asked if they could point to North Korea on a map many college students didn't know what a map was

CNN: We must bring America into the 21st century by replacing the 18th century Constitution with 19th century poetry

Pelosi: 'We have to impeach the president in order to find out what we impeached him for'

BREAKING: As of Saturday July 8, 2017, all of Earth's ecosystems have shut down as per Prince Charles's super scientific pronouncement made 96 months ago. Everything is dead. All is lost. Life on Earth is no more.

DNC to pick new election slogan out of four finalists: 'Give us more government or everyone dies,' 'Vote for Democrats or everyone dies,' 'Impeach Trump or everyone dies,' 'Stop the fearmongering or everyone dies'

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power" is humanity's last chance to save the Earth before it ends five years ago

Experts: The more we embrace diversity the more everything is the same

Study: Many non-voters still undecided on how they're not going to vote

The Evolution of Dissent: on November 8th the nation is to decide whether dissent will stop being racist and become sexist - or it will once again be patriotic as it was for 8 years under George W. Bush

Venezuela solves starvation problem by making it mandatory to buy food

China launches cube-shaped space object with a message to aliens: "The inhabitants of Earth will steal your intellectual property, copy it, manufacture it in sweatshops with slave labor, and sell it back to you at ridiculously low prices"

Progressive scientists: Truth is a variable deduced by subtracting 'what is' from 'what ought to be'

Experts agree: Hillary Clinton best candidate to lessen percentage of Americans in top 1%

America's attempts at peace talks with the White House continue to be met with lies, stalling tactics, and bad faith

Starbucks new policy to talk race with customers prompts new hashtag #DontHoldUpTheLine

Hillary: DELETE is the new RESET

Charlie Hebdo receives Islamophobe 2015 award; the cartoonists could not be reached for comment due to their inexplicable, illogical deaths

Russia sends 'reset' button back to Hillary: 'You need it now more than we do'

Barack Obama finds out from CNN that Hillary Clinton spent four years being his Secretary of State

President Obama honors Leonard Nimoy by taking selfie in front of Starship Enterprise